A.

Background of Study Talking about fiction, ones usually think that it is not real, only an output that may occur by imagination. Fiction sometimes is hard to understand, but very enjoyable and entertaining. However, it is very common to find that people have such a misunderstanding about what it means by fiction. Nowadays, almost people think that fiction is one of the genres of films. This may happen because people spend their time more often to watch rather than to read. Generally, fiction is very broad. Fiction is the form of any narrative or informative work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not factual, but rather imaginary and theoretical. Fiction can be divided into poetry, prose, and plays or drama. Later, poetry can be divided into acrostic, ballad, canzone, cinquain, concrete, couplet, diamante, dramatic poetry, epic poetry, free verse, ghazal, haiku, iambic pentameter, jintishi, limerick, lyric poetry, minnesang, narrative poetry, nursery rhymes, ode, pantoum, pastourelle, prose poetry, rondeau, rubai, satirical poetry, sestina, sijo, sonnet, stave, tanka, verse fable, and villanelle. Prose also can be divided into flash fiction or short short story, short story, novelette, novella, novel, and epic. On the other hand, plays or drama may be divided into some genres such as comedy, farce, satirical, tragedy, and historical. In the story analysed, the researcher took a short short story written by Michael Scott which title is The Death of Joan of Arc. The story was chosen because the researcher believed that a short short story is easier to read by people whose English as a foreign language.

Furthermore, the researcher was motivated to use discourse analysis in order to do the research because discourse analysis is needed in teaching and learning English. Technically, the research is conducted by using written discourse analysis. Written form or text needs much special attention because it carries information. Since the author of the text does not often know who is going to read the text, he/she cannot adjust to readers specific expectations. The writer is frequently able to consider the content of his/her work for almost unlimited period of time which makes it more coherent, having complex syntax. What is more, the reader might not instantly respond to the text, ask for clarification, hence neat message organisation, division to paragraphs, layout are of vital importance to make comprehension easier. In this research, the writer wants to analyse the grammatical and lexical cohesion of the text and the combination of those components to make the text coherent. Therefore, by considering the fact that fiction and discourse analysis are greatly important in English teaching and learning, the researcher tried to combine these two essential things into a discourse analysis research. B. Research Problem According to the background stated above, the research is presented in: 1. General Problem How do grammatical and lexical cohesion blend in order to make the text coherent? 2. Specific Problem a. How can the analysis provide teachers with the systematic knowledge of the ways of describing texts?

b. How can the understanding of the characteristic features of the discourse such as cohesion and coherent improve the learners writing skill? C. Frame of Theory 1. Discourse Analysis the term Discourse with capital D for ways of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions, ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various symbols, tools, and objects to enact a particular sort of socially recognizable identity. (Gee 2011: 28) As illustrated above James Paul Gee has a very detailed and tool oriented way of defining the concept of discourse in his book An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method (2011). In general, Gee takes a sociocultural approach to language, literacy, discourse studies and other areas, and he has centered his recent work on development of an integrated theory of language, literacy, and schooling. The synthetic approach entails possibility for integration of other concepts, theories and models and this particular aspect renders the approach apt for the present purpose. Therefore, Carter (1993: 23) states that:

Discourse analysis is a primarily linguistic study examining the use of language by its native population whose major concern is investigating language functions along with its forms, produced both orally and in writing. Moreover, identification of linguistic qualities of various genres, vital for their recognition and interpretation, together with cultural and social aspects which support its comprehension, is the domain of discourse analysis. To put it in another way, the

branch of applied linguistics dealing with the examination of discourse attempts to find patterns in communicative products as well as and their correlation with the circumstances in which they occur, which are not explainable at the grammatical level.

The first modern linguist who commenced the study of relation of sentences and coined the name 'discourse analysis', which afterwards denoted a branch of applied linguistics, was Zellig Harris (Cook 1990:13). Originally, however, it was not to be treated as a separate branch of study - Harris proposed extension of grammatical examination which reminded syntactic investigations (2). In 1960s and 1970s other scholars, that is philosophers of language or those dealing with pragmatics enormously influenced the development of this study as well. Among other contributors to this field the Prague School of Linguists, whose focusing on organization of information in communicative products indicated the connection of grammar and discourse, along with text grammarians are worth mentioning (McCarthy 1991:6).

A significant contribution to the evolution of discourse analysis has been made by British and American scholars. In Britain, the examination of discourse turned towards the study of the social functions of language. Research conveyed at the University of Birmingham fruited in creating a thorough account of communication in various situations such as debates, interviews, doctor-patient relations, paying close attention to the intonation of people participating in talks as well as manners particular to circumstances. Analysis of the factors essential

for succession of decently made communication products on the grounds of structural-linguistic criteria was another concern of British scholars. Americans, on the other hand, focused on examining small communities of people and their discourse in genuine circumstances. Apart from that, they concentrated on conversation analysis inspecting narratives in addition to talks and the behavior of speakers as well as patterns repeating in given situations. Division and specification of types of discourse along with social limitations of politeness and thorough description of face saving acts in speech is also American scholars' contribution (McCarthy 1991:6).

Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social psychology, international relations, human geography, communication studies, and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.

2. Types of Discourse

A type of discourse might be characterized as a class of either written or spoken text, which is frequently casually specified, recognition of which aids its perception, and consequently production of potential response (Cook 1990:156).

a. Spoken Discourse

Speech develops in time in that the speaker says with speed that is suitable for him, even if it may not be appropriate for the listener and

though a request for repetition is possible, it is difficult to imagine a conversation in which every sentence is to be rephrased. Moreover, talking might be spontaneous which results in mistakes, repetition, sometimes less coherent sentences where even grunts, stutters or pauses might be meaningful. The speaker usually knows the listener, or listeners, or he is at least aware of the fact that he is being listened to, which enables him to adjust the register. As interlocutors are most often in face-to-face encounters (unless using a phone) they take advantage of extralinguistic signals as grimaces, gesticulation, expressions such as 'here', 'now', or 'this' are used. Employment of nonsense vocabulary, slang and contracted forms (we're, you've) is another feature of oral discourse. Among other significant features of speech there are rhythm, intonation, speed of uttering and, what is more important, inability to conceal mistakes made while speaking (Dakowska 2001:07).

b. Written Discourse

In contrast, writing develops in space in that it needs a means to carry the information. The author of the text does not often know who is going to read the text, as a result he cannot adjust to readers' specific expectations. The writer is frequently able to consider the content of his work for almost unlimited period of time which makes it more coherent, having complex syntax. What is more, the reader might not instantly respond to the text, ask for clarification, hence neat message organization,

division to paragraphs, layout are of vital importance to make comprehension easier. Additionally, owing to the lack of context expressions such as 'now' or 'here' are omitted, since they would be ambiguous as texts might be read at different times and places. One other feature typical of writing, but never of oral discourse, is the organization of tables, formulas, or charts which can be portrayed only in written form (Crystal 1995:291).

3. Written Text Analysis Since the examination of written language is easier to conduct than the scrutiny of oral texts, in that more data is available in different genres, produced by people form different backgrounds as well as with disparate purposes, it is more developed and of interest not only to linguists but also language teachers and literary scholars. Each of them, however, approaches this study in a different way, reaching diverse conclusions, therefore only notions that are mutual for them and especially those significant for language methodology are accounted for here. What is worth mentioning is the fact that in that type of analysis scholars do not evaluate the content in terms of literary qualities, or grammatical appropriateness, but how readers can infer the message that the author intended to convey (Trappes-Lomax 2004:133).

One of the major concerns of written discourse analysts is the relation of neighboring sentences and, in particular, factors attesting to the fact that a given text is more than only the sum of its components. It is only with written language

analysis that certain features of communicative products started to be satisfactorily described, despite the fact that they were present also in speech, like for instance the use of 'that' to refer to a previous phrase, or clause (McCarthy 1991:37). As mentioned before, written language is more integrated than the spoken one which is achieved by more frequent use of some cohesive devices which apart from linking clauses or sentences are also used to emphasize notions that are of particular importance to the author and enable the reader to process the chosen information at the same time omitting needless sections (3, Salkie 1995:XI). 4. Grammatical Cohesion Grammatical cohesion refers to the various grammatical devices that can be used to make relations among sentences more explicit. Cohesive devices are used to tie pieces of text together in a specific way. The aim is to help the reader understand the items referred to, the ones replaced and even the items omitted. Furthermore, the combination of sentences using cohesive devices which have semantic relation need a shared linguistic environment to interpret items (Hammer 2004). 5. Lexical Cohesion Lexical cohesion is the cohesive effect achieved by the selection of vocabulary. Lexical cohesion is basically created by general nouns (super-ordinates), or repetition (reiteration) of the same lexeme, or the use of other lexical relations as cohesive patterns (Rouijel, Elhassan 2009)

Bibliography

Akmajian, A. and Demers, R. A. Linguistics. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Carter, R. 1993. Introducing applied linguistics. Harlow: Penguin. Cook, G. 1990. Discourse. Oxford: OUP. Crystal, D. 1992. Introducing linguistics. Harlow: Penguin. Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Dakowska, M. 2001. Psycholingwistyczne podstawy dydaktyki jzykw obcych. Warszawa: PWN. Gauker, Ch. 2003. Words without meaning. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Gee, J. P. 2001. An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge. McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge:CUP. Renkema, J. 2004. Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Rogers, R. (ed.). 2004 An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Salkie, R. 1995. Text and Discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Scollon, R. 2001. Mediated Discourse. The nexus of practice. London: Routledge. Trappes-Lomax, H. 2004 "Discourse analysis". The handbook of applied linguistics. 135164.